Seriously, what's the point. It wouldn't matter if Godexists believed life was the simplest thing to ever exist because they would still see it as evidence for ID..... because they already believe everything was created by god to begin with! It's the biggest tell tale sign that this argument is only used by those who already believe a god exists who made everything, and these people were never convinced about the existence of god from this argument. It's a special pleading case from an a priori assumption, working backwards from a conclusion they have already drawn. It's bogus and dishonest.

Well that's what the Dover Trial found anyway. All along they wanted to teach creationism but that was banned as religious. So they modified the old Creationist text book by changing 'creator' for 'designer' , probably using search and replace, and that was that. Behe came up with some technical sounding stuff and away creationism went and in came the 'scientific' Intelligent Design', all shiny and new. The pity was that Judge Jones wasn't so easy to fool.

Personally, since I can see we have very good descriptions of the working of biological parts so that coming up with stuff like Behe is just a trip to the library and no need for work, I can't for the life of me see why these people can't start looking for the designer. Clearly ID doesn't identify the designer (as it was designed not to do?) so a link is still needed - a link whch so far has eluded these people.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

And right at the beginning of your argument we start off with an equivocation.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

you don't buy it, because it does not fit your preconceived world view. Not, because the evidence does not lead in that direction. It actually does.

That is exactly what we are saying about you. Because that is exactly what you are doing. We are not accepting your "evidence" because it isn't evidence, it is bloody word play.

If you want to forward the theory that there is a designer, it would need to be a falsifiable theory and you would need to show us a non designed universe.

I am not saying that I know that the universe was not designed, I am saying that you are making a postulate the neither can be evidenced nor falsified, so it is as whimsical as saying the elves designed the earth last Tuesday to make it look like it does right now.

Why are you so desperate to get this ID accepted anyway. It would no more mean that said creator is Yahweh, than it was some forgotten creator god...except that you assume that it is because you are from a majority religion of the region and time you are located. I don't know that last part for certain, but I would bet on it.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I think the problem is, we start off the debate with DNA, and say, OMG, how could it ever form out of the primordial soup? Well it can't. Let's start with the basic, something the bible takes for granted - water. The fact that oxygen and hydrogen combine so easily is really all the evidence life needs - then just add an unfathomable length of time. Of course the argument from creationists would be god created water, but no, a god is not needed for the elements of hydrogen and oxygen to combine, nor for any elements to combine.

Quote

One big question that remains unanswered about the evolution of the early Earth is how volatiles such as hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon arrived – their presence being crucial to the origins of water and life. The two main candidates for the sources of these elements are asteroids, found between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and comets, which come from the colder outer reaches of the Solar System. Current models suggest that at some point in the evolution of the Solar System, a jolt to the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter caused comet-like material in the outer Solar System to be flung inwards into the present-day asteroid belt – eventually arriving at Earth and bringing the crucial volatiles.

I disagree with the above idea of C,H, N, and O needing to arrive from outside - if it's on an asteroid, I believe it could have been here. Anyway, organic chemistry offers the best clues to how we can get to life starting from scratch. Here is one supposed composition of stars:

If you study organic chemistry, you see how strings of carbons, hydrogens, and oxygens combine, with all sorts of elements added here and there on the string, and create (without a god) all sorts of chemicals.

I believe we should let this sink in (about one hundred million years) before we move to a basic amino acid, and then a virus. Remember, we have more than all day - we have over 4 billion years.

in case of dna, its to provide a blueprint for the construction of proteins.

Indeed. However, that doesn't answer the question of what you mean by the word code. For example, when I looked up the definition, it defined genetic code differently than computer code. In fact, the entry linked to the definition for genetic code, specifically, "the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for nearly all known forms of life". Now, I'm fine with that as a definition, because it eliminates the ambiguity created by calling it a code. But I need to know if you accept that definition, and if you don't, what you use instead.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

What I want to know is this; if it can be shown that cells were designed by some creator, where does that get us? Does that help us cure malaria or grow more food or build a colony on the moon?

What do we gain by adding a designer into the mix? How would that even change what scientists do? If the question is "why did god design smallpox" how can you possibly find the answer? How does that help us to cure smallpox?

For most of human history people believed in some form of intelligent design and it got us nowhere. We did not begin to make real scientific progress until we started asking questions that did not have automatic religious answers.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

What I want to know is this; if it can be shown that cells were designed by some creator, where does that get us? Does that help us cure malaria or grow more food or build a colony on the moon?

What do we gain by adding a designer into the mix? How would that even change what scientists do? If the question is "why did god design smallpox" how can you possibly find the answer? How does that help us to cure smallpox?

For most of human history people believed in some form of intelligent design and it got us nowhere. We did not begin to make real scientific progress until we started asking questions that did not have automatic religious answers.

To me, my faith in God, its a difference like day and night. Adopting a theistic world view, i can know God, and experience his grace and love of a loving father. Its a joy to be able to witness to others about the greatness of God. In that way, i am making a difference in this world, and my life has also value for others. It means loving and being loved by others. Furthermore, i find meaning , self worth, and ultimately it makes a difference, how i live, and who i am, and what i do today, has significance and consequences also in eternity. My life is not doomed when i die, rather i have the perspective of living eternally with God. So belief in God gives me hope for a eternal life in heaven. Furthermore, i find peace with God through the forgiveness of my sins, through Christ's death on the cross. Without faith in God, there is no hope of deliverance of unjustice and evil. Nor are there objective moral values. Everything becomes subjective and relative, and depends entirely on each individuals standpoints. Ultimately, there is no good, and no evil. There are just different viewpoints and standards based on personal preferences. Furthermore, the existence of the universe and life makes sense and its existence is explained in a satisfiying manner through a creator. In a broader sense, Christianity has shaped western civilisation in many ways for the better. The Bible itself is responsible for much of the language, literature, music and fine arts we enjoy today as its artists and composers were heavily influenced by its writings. The liberties and human rights of secular governments , freedom and rights of the individual, and so the criminal and justice system are direct consequence of the bible, and so the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of social position, power and wealth. The education system, care of orphans and the elders, and hospitals goes back to the spread of monasteries, which were taking care of the general population. Science began to flourish in the western world, like Occam's razor in the twelfth century , and many science fathers, like Galilei, Newton, Volta, Ohm, Ampere, Kelvin, Faraday etc. were all Christians. There are many other things, but this is just to name a few.

Many of the things you mention also happened in other, non-Christian cultures. Those other cultures produced language, literature, music, and fine arts that had nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. Legal systems, the concept of justice, education, caring for others, and even medicine all happened in non-Christian cultures at least as much as they happened in Christian ones - indeed, non-Christian cultures actually outnumbered Christian ones, and still do today. For that matter, many of the civil liberties and human rights that we value today came about not because of Christianity, but because of other cultures which had enshrined them in their heritage, and which Christian nations ended up having no choice but to copy because of how well they ended up working. A prime example is the Iroquois Confederacy, not to mention the Constitution that they developed on their own, without significant Christian input.

Let's not forget the Christian cultures which enshrined exactly the opposite values, such as the Spanish and Portuguese. They didn't care about human rights, about civil liberties, or even about supposedly basic Christian ideals, such as doing unto others and turning the other cheek. What they cared about was accumulating wealth, power, glory, and "saving souls"...by using the threat of torture against people they'd forced to convert to keep them from reverting to the faiths they actually wanted to worship, for example. By keeping their foot on the necks of the people they'd conquered, on forcing them to become Christians whether they wanted to or not. And they didn't care in the slightest if they killed off their conquered workers through neglect, disease, overwork, or anything else, provided they were "saved".

It's true that many scientists were Christians, but many other scientists were not Christians. And for a long period of time, there were no Christian scientists, no Christian doctors. Christian educators and scholars, such as they were and what there were of them, were focused on teaching about the Bible and learning about the Bible, and really didn't care that much about the natural world. Let's not forget about the internecine warfare between Christian nations that disagreed about their beliefs, like the 30 Years War, which trampled over Germany as Protestant and Catholic armies clashed for territory there.

Aside from that, you never really answered nogodsforme's question. She was asking what benefits inserting God into science would have, and you didn't actually answer that. Yes, many discoveries were made by Christians, but many other discoveries were made by non-Christians. That holds even more true today, when many scientists are agnostic at best. So, what difference does it make if a scientific discovery is made by a Christian, as opposed to a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Deist, or an agnostic, or an atheist?

I do think that geneticists have to start moving away from terms like "information" and "code", or else come up with a synonym that doesn't suggest sentient involvement in the process but presents DNA replication as more mechanistic.

As unpleasant as it might be I think the delusional need to be disabused of their delusions rather than concessions being made to their willful dishonesty and ignorance.

That's a fair criticism. It might be a Sisyphean effort, though, considering the tendency of so many believers to choose whatever definition of a word best supports their beliefs, rather than the definition commonly used in whatever subject is being debated. (FFS, we even scrap with them over the meaning of the word "atheist.")

meaning that without a faith in god these values don't exist. So,. God exists, can you point me to these objective moral values, please. I'm assuming that objective moral values remain the same and don't change with the fashions of society.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel ) in the cell, which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :

It transforms eletrical current in mechanical movement through its rotor. Each time the rotor turns 120 degrees, a molecule of ATP is made, with three molecules of this high-energy compound generated for one full rotation of the rotor. It has remarkable similiarities to a man made rotary motor. You need a lot of faith to believe, it could have arisen purely through natural ,non intelligent mechanisms.

Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel ) in the cell, which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :

"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel ) in the cell, which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :

"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.

True Hatter. That's is really all ID or rather Creation Science by another name really is - we don't know how it happened so 'god-did-it!' the thing is, though,they never find a sign of the 'designer' or ever look for a 'designer' because the whole idea is based on the Christian god and creationism. Thus, the 'god-did-it!' approach to science. I notice it wasn't creation scientists who worked out te whole mechanism of ATP and won the Nobel Prize though.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel ) in the cell, which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :

"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.

Hey, stop bringing up the flawed and boring " god of the gaps " argument. I want to see your naturalistic explanation, how it could happen.

Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel ) in the cell, which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :

"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.

Hey, stop bringing up the flawed and boring " god of the gaps " argument. I want to see your naturalistic explanation, how it could happen.

Not to make to fine a point, all you have done is to say something is IR. You haven't shown how it came to be. Did the designer design the whole organism in one, just design odd bits and pop them in or what. That the mechanism you have shown us in in the vast majority of life how did it happen that the design got put in so many things at once - including species that are now extinct like dinosaurs?

The thing is, that just saying something could not evolve either shows that to be the case or that we don't know yet but its a long way to showing how it happened and finding a designer. We'll work on one end and you work on the other and we might meet in the middle.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I notice it wasn't creation scientists who worked out te whole mechanism of ATP and won the Nobel Prize though.

There are no " creation scientists ". There are just scientists, of which each has its personal world view, but that is a entirely separate matter.

In regards of the " God of the gaps " argument :

That seems to me rather a cheap and dishonest answer. Not dishonest to me, but to yourself. No one here has even made a attempt to try to explain the ATP synthase nano motor through natural mechanisms. Why not ? I'll answer it for you. Because there is simply no use of the subunits individually, so there is no way this amazing nano motor to arise in a stepwise manner. There is no selective advantage to have a " half " nanomotor. And it could not arise by chance alone. Thats simply a irrational hypothesis. And like the ATP Synthase, there are many other Nano motors in the cell.

Look for example the incredible Kinesin Motors : these are cargo carriers in the cell and help in cell division. Its lifes smallest motor. They look like a post man, marching and holding the cargo with two " arms ", almost like humans. They know exactly where to catch the cargo, where to go in the cell, and where to drop it. Micro tubule highways built up before they walk on them, assembled by proteins, each manufactured in accordance with the coded instructions of DNA, and once the cargo has been delivered at the right place, the nano highway dismantles. Until recently, scientists did not have a idea of how ATP fuel propels its walking like movement . The action happens at atomic level. That is one more example of the amazing engineering science has discovered in the cell. How do you want to explain these motors, which exist inside the cell ? They had all to be arise before life existed, since they make part of the cells functions.

Here you can see our hero in action, it starts at 1,2 minutes of the video :

Please explain how this amazing nanomotor, ATP synthase, responsible for generating ATP ( the fuel ) in the cell, which has not changed during lifes history , could have arisen through natural processes, in a step up fashion, and what functions its individual parts and subunits could have if not complete :

"If I cannot exactly explain it, therefore god" is your argument. This is an argument from ignorance.

Hey, stop bringing up the flawed and boring " god of the gaps " argument. I want to see your naturalistic explanation, how it could happen.

Not to make to fine a point, all you have done is to say something is IR. You haven't shown how it came to be. Did the designer design the whole organism in one, just design odd bits and pop them in or what. That the mechanism you have shown us in in the vast majority of life how did it happen that the design got put in so many things at once - including species that are now extinct like dinosaurs?

The thing is, that just saying something could not evolve either shows that to be the case or that we don't know yet but its a long way to showing how it happened and finding a designer. We'll work on one end and you work on the other and we might meet in the middle.

Yes, i believe God created everything, the whole, amazingly finely tuned universe, and life. He created the cell, all animals, all plants, everything.